The term came from a joke post which described how I misread "fleshrender gargoyle" for "transgender gargoyle" after reading too much Huffington Post. But it didn't go away, kept haunting me until I realized how important the non-existent transgender gargoyles are.
There are many beings in video game worlds which have no genders at all. There are no group of gargoyles that go and attack travelers while other group stays at home tending little gargoyles, based on genitalia. All gargoyles are attacking everyone on sight and they don't even have little gargoyles as they are animated from stone statues by black magic. Ogres of World of Warcraft are likely sexually reproducing as they are humanoids and there are little ogres, but there are no visual or behavioral clues which one is male and which one is female. They seem to live in a completely egalitarian societies where sex has no affect on employment or political power, only personal ability and aspirations decide if an ogre becomes brute, bruiser, hexxer or remains simple "ogre", meaning "worker".
The point is in such societies there cannot be transgenders. Which is the elephant in the hottest political debate: you can't believe in transgenders and feminist gender ideology at the same time, while liberals are doing both and conservatives neither. Let me explain: according to feminism, gender is a social construct: being with penis doesn't mean that you'll like blue, you'll wear trousers and you fit to be top manager or coal miner, only the patriarchal society says this. According to feminism, a woman has equal right to wear blue trousers while working in a mine for equal salary as a man. Conservatives usually disagree and claim that it's a natural order.
However if only the patriarchal society says that mining needs penis, then someone who wants to be a miner but has no penis doesn't need one (transgender), he just needs a job in a mine and it's possible as there is even an association for them. In other words, when someone without penis says "I want to be a man", you can always ask back "what do you want that men have and women don't" and then show her that the activity is already available for women. The bottom line is that if you claim that "real man" is an oppressive social construct that needs to be dissolved, you cannot also claim that someone is really a man. If the feminist utopia of equal job access, equal pay, equal housework would be reached, humanity would be like the gargoyles in the video game: without gender.
Of course the opposite criticism is also true. If you claim that men and women are naturally different and penis people belong to the mine while vagina people belong to the kitchen, you must accept that there will be ones who simply can't fulfill their God-destined role and need to be fixed. If they can't function in the kitchen and you don't want to keep them imprisoned, the only option left is gender surgery.
Transgenders are a product of being overtly social, wanting to belong to a group. If I can't fit "the men", let's try "the women". Too bad that they aren't real groups, it's not like "the women" have a clubhouse somewhere where they are friendly and accepting with each other.
There are many beings in video game worlds which have no genders at all. There are no group of gargoyles that go and attack travelers while other group stays at home tending little gargoyles, based on genitalia. All gargoyles are attacking everyone on sight and they don't even have little gargoyles as they are animated from stone statues by black magic. Ogres of World of Warcraft are likely sexually reproducing as they are humanoids and there are little ogres, but there are no visual or behavioral clues which one is male and which one is female. They seem to live in a completely egalitarian societies where sex has no affect on employment or political power, only personal ability and aspirations decide if an ogre becomes brute, bruiser, hexxer or remains simple "ogre", meaning "worker".
The point is in such societies there cannot be transgenders. Which is the elephant in the hottest political debate: you can't believe in transgenders and feminist gender ideology at the same time, while liberals are doing both and conservatives neither. Let me explain: according to feminism, gender is a social construct: being with penis doesn't mean that you'll like blue, you'll wear trousers and you fit to be top manager or coal miner, only the patriarchal society says this. According to feminism, a woman has equal right to wear blue trousers while working in a mine for equal salary as a man. Conservatives usually disagree and claim that it's a natural order.
However if only the patriarchal society says that mining needs penis, then someone who wants to be a miner but has no penis doesn't need one (transgender), he just needs a job in a mine and it's possible as there is even an association for them. In other words, when someone without penis says "I want to be a man", you can always ask back "what do you want that men have and women don't" and then show her that the activity is already available for women. The bottom line is that if you claim that "real man" is an oppressive social construct that needs to be dissolved, you cannot also claim that someone is really a man. If the feminist utopia of equal job access, equal pay, equal housework would be reached, humanity would be like the gargoyles in the video game: without gender.
Of course the opposite criticism is also true. If you claim that men and women are naturally different and penis people belong to the mine while vagina people belong to the kitchen, you must accept that there will be ones who simply can't fulfill their God-destined role and need to be fixed. If they can't function in the kitchen and you don't want to keep them imprisoned, the only option left is gender surgery.
Transgenders are a product of being overtly social, wanting to belong to a group. If I can't fit "the men", let's try "the women". Too bad that they aren't real groups, it's not like "the women" have a clubhouse somewhere where they are friendly and accepting with each other.
19 comments:
While there are certainly feminists who are actually against the notion of transgenderism - precisely because gender shouldn't matter, and wanting to be a specific one supports the existing hierarchy - "passing" as a specific gender is not necessarily the only end-goal for trans people. Sometimes it is precisely the issue of gender dysphoria, be that biological or psychological in origin. Thus, even if all genders were equal in society, there could still legitimately be trans persons.
Actually there are many reasons for people to want to transition. One is legitimate.
Dysphoria, mainly. There are little known cures to dysphoria, anti-psychotics and anti-depressants doesn't work.
No, the problem is when males transition to female to go in women space.
Perfect example:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/6euns1/showering_at_work/
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/6h7658/an_update_on_petes_cock/
This guy, on purpose, goes to shower same time as the woman.
Also when they try to indoctrinate children and incidentally sterilize them on puberty blockers. Those kids are most likely homosexuals and would otherwise grow up fine as gay men or lesbian women.
Read some /r/GenderCritical, 4thWave Now, etc... the problem is definitly trans men pushing themselves on women. The "if you're a lesbian you must like penis because some women have penises and otherwise you're transphobic bigot"
Also the crazy delusional thinking "You can't tell someone's genital by looking at them!"
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/6mr7t4/long_discussion_on_rasktransgender_why_do_genital/
And at the very deep end, you have Stephonknee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpK1gf-rw5s
Yeah sure you can, this guy got a beard, 99.7% chance he has a dick.
That is the problem with transgender. If they just transitioned and shut up, they'd be fine. Some do. Those are cool, and deserve respect.
But those who're hellbent in increasing their numbers, even if they have to sacrifice kids for it. They're single men, no children, who transitions, then start to do activism and advocate for younger and younger transition., else "kids will kill themselves" Suicide and depression isn't curbed by transitioning, however, so suicide rates are the same either way if the other issues are not treated by a mental health professional.
(PS: Girl Brain, Male brain, has not been proven. Transgender cannot know how it feels to be a woman if they're born male. Intersex has no relation whatsoever with transgenderism.)
I'm mostly in support of the theory (call it conspiracy theory if you will) that the current powers-that-be seek to reduce population growth in the developed world, because they don't want to have to provide more people with the comparatively affluent standart of living (two-floor multibedroom house in the suburbs and multiple cars per family).
One of the numerous advantages of this theory is that it does actually resolve the apparent contradiction of feminists supporting transgender. Booth are a tools that ultimately reduce the chance of babies being born.
Feminism reduces these chances by having women spend their most fertile years pursuing carreers and then having trouble finding a partner who could provide them the standart of living they want through the pregnancy/baby-making period.
Transgender reduces these chances by increasing chances of couples unable to have children, because they are essentially same-sex couples (albeit one partner is transgender).
So it would make sense that any entities that have said agenda would try to push both ideas.
> you can always ask back "what do you want that men have and women don't" and then show her that the activity is already available for women.
You're exaggerating here. There are still some jobs which women are barred from taking by administrative rules or legislation. The list is generally shrinking, but it can take years for any particular restriction to be challenged and rescinded.
The US Naval Special Warfare, for example, barred women until 2016. It's not that women signed up, but they were too physically weak and so they always failed the entrance test. They weren't allowed to apply.
If you're a transman who wants to participate in a role which is traditionally limited to men, then it makes sense to fight on both fronts. You want legal recognition for yourself (such as the letter "M" on your driver's license) so that you bypass any annoying bureaucrats and get on with your life. But you'll *also* try to get the restriction removed so that people in the future don't need to deal with official policies of discrimination.
> If the feminist utopia would be reached
But is HASN'T been reached. That's the point. We pursue short-term goals (such as legal recognition of gender reassignment) which would be superfluous or counter-productive in a perfect world. But we don't live in a perfect world.
We live in a world where the letters on your birth certificate can alter your tax bracket, your insurance premiums, your admission to post-secondary education, etc.
You can't ask feminists to ignore present-day reality and focus exclusively on the long-term vision of a perfect society.
Seems like a term "transgender gargoyle" isn't your invention: https://twitter.com/godfreyelfwick/status/710478371818479617 . Someone cares to find older source?
There is no problem with transgender people. There are so few of them it doesn't matter for the society at large. They just want to be left alone and blend in as much as possible. Nobody would be bothered by the trans people if the feminists didn't demand special privileges for them. Hell, I don't even mind paying for their transitions with my taxes (even though I'm against excessive taxation in general) because there are so few of them it just doesn't matter.
The problem is with feminist activists who are doing exactly the opposite: they create drama that the transgender people have to pay for later. They just need an "oppressed group" to cry about. Yes, they are oppressed. Oppressed by their unfortunate mental illness no more than the sufferers of other diseases.
Transsexualism is clearly a psychological issue that should have been studied with the intent to remedy. However, the "activists" again are claiming that trying to set transsexuals straight is a crime against humanity. No psychiatrist is allowed to study a possible remedy because they'd lose their license instantly.
@Anon
"PS: Girl Brain, Male brain, has not been proven"
You are out of your mind. People behave differently based on their sex so if it isn't in their brain you're claiming they are thinking with their genitals.
And before you come up with the usual "social construct" bullshit, one DAY old babies show differences already. It has been VERY MUCH PROVEN everywhere outside of gender studies courses.
@Anon
"We live in a world where the letters on your birth certificate can alter your tax bracket, your insurance premiums, your admission to post-secondary education, etc."
Indeed, our world is completely unfair. How about we remove all those WOMEN privileges then? cause everything you listed (taxes, insurance, education grants) is aimed at helping women.
@Maxim: there are no conspiracies and "powers that be". There are ideas and classes. For example capitalism requires workforce and being a reliable workers conflicts with being a mother, that explains the women pursuing careers.
@Anon: I do admit that having a "M" or "F" in your documents have benefits. I can also accept that in the current society there are social benefits of being recognized as a member of a gender (even if women can be miners, they probably get hazings and "pranks" from male miners that they wouldn't get if they were believed to be male).
However even if we accept that, we shouldn't have "transsexuals", we should have 100% men who used to be women that no one needs to know. The main problem with "transsexuals" is that they reap some benefits of being the other gender without paying for the whole package. For example going to women-only restroom with a penis. Hell, I could walk into a woman-only space without changing anything, just by SAYING that I'm a woman. This is not an exaggeration, Lauren Southern, a very feminine woman changed her gender to male on documents, just to prove this point (and now collecting "oh I just turned gay" compliments from males drooling on his photos).
@Slawomir: I never doubted that. I did not claim anything about transsexuals themselves in the post. I merely pointed out that feminists shouldn't even believe in their existence.
About "Male brain": while there are definitely day 1 preferences, please remember that we have day 1 preference to poop under ourselves and then play with the poop. Later we learn proper toilet use. And to shave our face/legs, despite even as adults we have biological predisposition to look like a caveman. And not to beat up people we are mad at, despite the adrenaline response and the increased muscle tension is still here. Biological preferences are possible to overwrite with proper nurturing, that's what civilization is about.
Finally: I think he talks about health insurance that cost more for women.
Rejecting feminist ideology does not require embracing transgenderism.
We can accept that God made man and women differently, and embrace the differently roles He created us for.
Male Brain Female brain in the context of "transgender theory", as in brain structure, not observable behavioural differences between sexes.
There is no observable difference (mri scans) between male and female brains. So, that can't be used to prove or disprove transgenderism.
Transgender activist claim that there are, wrongly.
@Anon: but God/Nature also created disabled, crazy and criminal and the society needs to deal with it.
@Anon
citing MRI research as a proof in brain differences is silly. MRI resolution can only spot the location of large brain structures.
Even then, there are differences showing in MRI scans, which everybody who isn't in gender studies knows about.
Men and women are different, which can be easily seen by everybody who's ever looked at both and can actually use their brain for anything other than repeating propaganda.
@Gevlon:
There's the old nature vs nurture, but to claim that our upbringing nullifies inborn behaviours is just silly. It moderates our instincts, no doubt about it, but only to some extent.
Feminists are obviously incoherent and are actually going to harm both gay and transgender people with their bullshit. So far straight people have been accepting of sexual minorities on the basis of "they were born this way, not their fault". Now feminists are telling us it's all "social construct" and "gender fluid". So, if it's socially constructed, let's deconstruct it using electric shocks and insulin therapy, for their own good!
You're preaching to the choir. Tell that to the transgender activists who are the one saying that transwoman are "males with female brains"
Not sure why you're telling me that, in essence we agree.
Your latter point is actually accepted by the state of Iran, transgenderism is allowed, and the Iranian state will actually pay for the surgery.
I hope you won't deny the fact that people with both global reach and global agendas do exist and do occasionally conspire with each other.
The disadvantage of pure capitalist interpretation is
Primary) how does it explain the marriage between feminist and transgender ideas?
Secondary) wonen are workforce now, kids are more workforce 18 years later. Is capitalism really so desperate for workforce now that it wants to cripple workforce later?
@maxim: very few people have agendas. Most have just short term goals without considering (or able to consider) the consequences. For example most Western Liberals just wanted to show off how liberal they are by supporting a "few refugees". They didn't see millions of mostly young male migrants coming from poor but not war-torn countries.
In simpler words: don't assume conspiracy where idiocy is adequate explanation.
anon That is the problem with transgender. If they just transitioned and shut up, they'd be fine. Some do. Those are cool, and deserve respect.
well that is the problem. you can change them they still are suicidal as fuck. any half good poll you can find will reflect that. those "deserving" respect are those integrating and living a fulfilling life and dying of old age.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/gender-dysphoria
surgery is an _option_ not the goal! but why listen to people in the field or old people wit live experience for that matter, why look up sucide rates of the different groups (butchered unbutchered).
Embrace the BS, look at canada with bill 89, if a 8yo boy doesn't get his vagina because mom and dad said the only sensable thing "no". the state of canada can and will interven and butcher the kid in the interest of the child.
@Gevlon
Idiots differ from conspirators in one crucial respect. Even an idiot will stop doing a thing if that thing actively hurts him. A conspirator will continue doing the thing that is hurting him, hoping to profit through an agenda. Idiocy does not hinder self-preservation, having an agenda actually does
Idiocy would have been an adequate explanation for the western liberal refugee situation before Cologne, which was a year and a half ago
@maxim: actually ALL idiots are doing things that hurt them.
What happens in the West about migration:
- 90% of the Western people don't even see migrants, because they live in blocks. If you are in a French rural village or the rich district of Berlin, you could easily not see a single migrant in your life.
- The 10% who saw migrants are typically poor and powerless
- The media silences their pleas and the cops leave out ethnic or immigration status from the report ("5 men are accused of raping a women")
So the average Western has no immediate reason to care. This will change only when the economic weight of the migrants will be unbearable to them. They still won't see migrants, they will see recession. Remember that Trump won in the "rust belt" states where factories closed down due to moving to Mexico and because of Obamacare that doubled everyone's healthcare cost to pay for the migrants and the lazy citizens.
Conspirators (would) think about the economy. Idiots don't.
@Gevlon
It appears we won't settle the differences in our interpretations of idiocy here.
However, i would like to point out that all these idiots seem to be playing right into the hands of some very specific institutions and these institutions create sub-entities to provide financial support for the idiots to do more of the things they are doing.
If you don't want to call it conspiracy than call it fanning the fire and taking the advantage of the existing idiotic situation. The net result is the same
Post a Comment